Avatars with Sex Appeal as Pedagogical Agents: Attractiveness,Trustworthiness,Expertise,and Gender Differences

Abstract

The study focused on the use of pedagogical agents with sex appeal in a computer-assisted learning environment. The study adopted a 2 (male/female) × 3 (demure/seductive/overtly sexual) experimental design. The primary analysis consisted of 2 parts: (a) comparing the impact of effective learning on students' perceptions of demure, seductive, or overtly sexual pedagogical agents, and (b) exploring gender differences in the usage of pedagogical agents with sex appeal. The empirical study results revealed that the sex appeal of female pedagogical agents is more helpful in effective learning than those of male agents. The sexy appearances of pedagogical agents are perceived by students as attractive, untrustworthy, and unprofessional. A seductive appearance in pedagogical agents is the most beneficial for effective learning than demure or overtly sexual ones. Students' and pedagogical agents' gender affect the impact of pedagogical agents with sex appeal on effective learning.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

M. W.

Judd

B. B.

Jr. (1978). Do nudes in ads enhance brand recall? Journal of Advertising Research, 18(1), 47–50.

Atkinson

R. K.

(2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427.

Baker

M. J.

Churchill

G. A.

(1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538–555.

Baker

S. C.

Wentz

R. K.

Woods

M. M.

(2009). Using virtual worlds in education: Second Life® as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 59–64.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Baylor

A. L.

(2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373–382.

Baylor

A. L.

(2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403–425.

Baylor

A. L.

(2007). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Proceedings of Workshop on Affective Interactions: Computers in the Affective Loop. International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA.

10.

Baylor

A. L.

Ryu

(2003). The API (Agent Persona Instrument) for assessing pedagogical agent persona. In Lassner

McNaughat

(Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 448–451). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

11.

Black

I. R.

Organ

G. C.

Morton

(2010). The effect of personality on response to sexual appeals. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 1453–1477.

12.

Bloch

P. H.

Richins

M. L.

(1992). You look “mahvelous”: The pursuit of beauty and the marketing concept. Psychology and Marketing, 9(1), 3–15.

13.

Clarebout

Elen

(2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 211–226.

14.

Clarebout

Elen

Johnson

W. L.

Shaw

(2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267–286.

15.

Craig

Gholson

Driscoll

D. M.

(2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428–434.

16.

Davies

Brantley

(2007). Sex appeals that appeal: Negative sexual self-schema as a moderator of the priming effects of sexual ads on accessibility. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(2), 79–89.

17.

Debevec

Kernan

J. B.

(1984). More evidence on the effects of a presenter's physical attractiveness: Some cognitive, affective and behavioral consequences. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 127–132.

18.

Dholakia

R. R.

Sternthal

(1977). Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 223–232.

19.

Friedman

H. H.

Friedman

(1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(5), 63–71.

20.

Gulz

(2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.

21.

Gulz

Haake

(2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. International Journal of Humane-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322–339.

22.

Hovland

C. I.

Janis

I. L.

Kelley

H. H.

(1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

23.

Jennings

Collins

(2008). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in second life. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180–186.

24.

Johnson

W. L.

Rickel

J. W.

Lester

J. C.

(2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.

25.

Jones

M. Y.

Stanaland

A. J. S.

Gelb

B. D.

(1998). Beefcake and cheesecake: Insights for advertisers. Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 33–51.

26.

Joseph

W. B.

(1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24.

27.

Judd

B. B.

Jr. Alexander

M. W.

(1983). On the reduced effectiveness of some sexually suggestive ads. Academy of Marketing Science, 11(1), 156–168.

28.

Kahle

L. R.

Homer

P. M.

(1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 954–961.

29.

Kim

Baylor

A. L.

(2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology, 47(1), 23–28.

30.

Kim

, Baylor, A. L., & PALS Group. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223–243.

31.

Kim

Baylor

A. L.

Shen

(2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 220–234.

32.

Kim

Wei

, (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505–514.

33.

LaTour

Henthorne

(1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81–90.

34.

Lester

Converse

S. A.

Kahler

S. E.

Barlow

S. T.

Stone

B. A.

Bhogal

R. S.

(1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In CHI'97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 359–366). New York, NY: ACM Press.

35.

Maddux

J. E.

Rogers

R. W.

(1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 235–244.

36.

Mayer

R. E.

(1992). Cognition and instruction: On their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405–412.

37.

Mills

Aronson

(1965). Opinion change as a function of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(2), 173–177.

38.

Moreno

(2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.

39.

Moreno

Mayer

R. E.

Spires

H. A.

Lester

(2001). The case for social agency in computer-base teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 117–213.

40.

Nomura

Hasegawa-Ohira

Kurosawa

Hanasaka

Yajima

Fukumura

(2012). Skin temperature as a possible indicator of student involvement in e-learning sessions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 3(1), 1–20.

41.

Ohanian

(1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.

42.

Park

D. H.

Lee

J. M.

(2008). eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 7(4), 386–398.

43.

Patzer

G. L.

(1980). A comparison of advertisement effects: Sexy female communicator vs. non-sexy female communicator. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 359–364.

44.

Price

Murray

(2009). Match-up revisited: The effect of staff attractiveness on purchase intentions in younger adult females: Social comparative and product relevance effects. Journal of International Business and Economics, 9(2), 55–76.

45.

Putrevu

(2008). Consumer responses toward sexual and nonsexual appeals. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 57–69.

46.

Rosenberg-Kima

R. B.

Baylor

A. L.

Plant

E. A.

Doerr

C. E.

(2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2741–2756.

47.

Sciglimpaglia

Belch

Gain

Jr. (1979). Demographic and cognitive factors influencing viewers evaluations of “sexy” advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 62–65.

48.

Sengupta

Dahl

D. W.

(2008). Gender-related reactions to gratuitous sex appeals in advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 62–78.

49.

Severn

Belch

G. E.

Belch

M. A.

(1990). The effects of sexual and non-sexual advertising appeals and information level on cognitive processing and communication effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 14–22.

50.

Shaw

Johnson

W. L.

Ganeshan

(1999). Pedagogical agents on the web. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents. New York, NY: ACM Press.

51.

Simpson

P. M.

Horton

Brown

(1996). Male nudity in advertisements: A modified replication and extension of gender and product effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(3), 257–262.

52.

Solomon

M. R.

Ashmore

R. D.

Longo

L. C.

(1992). The beauty match-up hypothesis: Congruence between types of beauty and product images in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 23–34.

53.

Steadman

(1969). How sexy illustrations affect rand recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 5–19.

54.

Veletsianos

(2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373–377.

55.

Veletsianos

(2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576–585.

56.

Veletsianos

Miller

(2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969–986.

57.

Wang

C. C.

Wang

Y. T.

(2010). Who is everyone's darling in cyberspace? The characteristics of popular online daters. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 3(1), 69–98.

58.

Woo

H. L.

(2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using an animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 203–218.